Friday, August 12, 2011

Blown Out of the Water

He writes about "complex specified information" (CSI) and "irreducible complexity" (IC). According to Barry Arrington ...

The answer is that the hypothesis is, in principle, falsifiable.

All it would take is even one instance of CSI or IC being observed to arise through chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two. Such an observation would blow the ID project out of the water.

We need a good definition of irreducible complexity. I like the one proposed by Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box.

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

If you read this carefully you'll see the catch. What Behe is saying is that a true irreducibly complex system can only arise by a single mechanism, namely one where the precursor has the same function. But the precursor can't, by definition, have the same function if it's missing some of the parts required in the final version. Thus, the only way for an irreducibly complex system to arise—by definition—is if it is created instantaneously as a complex system.

Behe is correct in his claim that such systems cannot evolve by any known mechanisms of evolution. Therefore, if a true irreducibly complex system exists, it cannot be as a result of evolution.

Let's look at an example. The citric acid cycle is a cycle of eight interacting enzymes that catalyze the oxidation of a 2-carbon molecule (an acetyl group) to CO2. The pathway won't work if you remove any one of the enzymes. Thus, it seems on the surface to be an example of an irreducibly complex system.

However, we have a very good understanding of how the citric acid cycle evolved from simpler pathways. Most species of bacteria don't have a citric acid cycle. Instead they have two separate pathways, reductive and oxidative, that are similar to the left and right halves of the citric acid cycle respectively. We can easily construct a plausible scenario that joins the two branches to create a cycle. Does this mean that we have a good example of the evolution of an irreducibly complex system, thus blowing ID out of the water?

Of course it does. But the IDiots will never admit it. Instead, they note that such a pathway involves precursors that don't have the same function as the complete citric acid cycle; therefore, the citric acid cycle wasn't really irreducibly complex. In order to be irreducibly complex, sensu Behe, it has to be impossible for it to arise by evolution.

The bacterial flagellum is another example of a postulated irreducibly complex system. But we now have a pretty good idea of how it evolved. It evolved from a primitive type III secretion mechanism. Even if the IDiots were to accept this explanation—they don't—it would not refute irreducible complexity since the type III secretion mechanism has a different function. All this means is that the bacterial flagellum wasn't really irreducibly complex to begin with because irreducibly complex systems can't arise by natural means. You can't win.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us with a tautology: "... a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct." Irreducibly complex systems are, by definition, things that cannot evolve. If you postulate that something is irreducibly complex, then show later on how it evolved, it wasn't irreducibly complex to begin with. The definition is not falsifiable. The best that can happen is that the number of postulated irreducibly complex systems gets smaller and smaller until there are none left. The number is not likely to ever reach zero since the IDiots are really good at combing the scientific literature in order to discover something that almost nobody is working on.

This is not science. It is simply a rhetorical attack on the concept of evolution. That's what Intelligent Design Creationism is all about.1

1. Attacking evolution is scientific. After all, lots of us question certain aspects of evolution and still call ourselves scientists. It's the concept of Intelligent Design Creationism as an explanation for observed events that's not scientific. Intelligent Design Creationism never explains anything. You're never going to see an IDiot explain how the bacterial flagellum arose—not even in a creationist textbook.

21 comments:

Behe actually revised his definition of irreducible complexity, so maybe it would be better to work with that: "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway."

"That definition has the advantage of promoting research: to state clear, detailed evolutionary pathways; to measure probabilistic resources; to estimate mutation rates; to determine if a given step is selected or not. It allows for the proposal of any evolutionary scenario a Darwinist (or others) may wish to submit, asking only that it be detailed enough so that relevant parameters might be estimated. If the improbability of the pathway exceeds the available probabilistic resources (roughly the number of organisms over the relevant time in the relevant phylogenetic branch) then Darwinism is deemed an unlikely explanation and intelligent design a likely one."

I believe this also addresses a number of Prof. Moran's objections. Detailed scenarios are most welcome.

Behe's argument is bullshit, but not for the reason you state; rather, the bullshit lies in his presumption that an IC system cannot possibly have any evolutionary precursor.The steps of any evolutionary process can all be found in one of three distinct classes: One, "add a new bit that wasn't there before". Two, "remove a bit that was there before". Three, "modify a bit that was there before". By Behe's definition of IC, it's obviously true that the final step of any process that produces an IC system cannot be "add a new bit"... but what about a process whose final step was "remove an existing bit" or "modify an existing bit"? Yes, "an IC system with one bit missing" cannot possibly function. But what about "an IC system with one extra bit" or "an IC system with one bit modified"?In short, Behe's error is that he ignores 2/3 of the full range of evolutionary change. Wotta maroon!

I know enough about evolutionary biology to know that I really don't know anything about it. I approach it from what I feel is common sense. Clearly anything that someone would term as irreducibly complex ('IC') had to get here somehow. There is no evidence for things appearing out of nowhere; and when such appears to happen it's because we lack information, and know this.

It's always been because we lack the appropriate knowledge. Always! Never has this not been the case. Logic (weak as this might be) says that upon seeing something that seems irreducibly complex we should first understand that we are lacking knowledge and seek more of it rather than to presume this proves something else that otherwise has no proof.

Based on this logic I feel confident in dismissing ANY claim that something is irreducibly complex until it is scientifically proven to be so.

Now, not being a biologist I can comfortably take note of this one in my 'wait and see' log book and wait for fine folk like yourselves to show us the additional information that is required to understand this situation thoroughly. Thanks for being 'those' folk.

Is it simple hubris to believe that even one case of 'IC' is proof of a designer? Even if that were true, it says nothing about such a designer. One can easily imagine the name of such a designer as Lucifer with equal validity as any other name. This reduces the value of finding something that is 'IC' to nothing more useful than a clarion call for better research. Anything else would be hubris in light of the information we have at hand about other IC claims.

If the improbability of the pathway exceeds the available probabilistic resources

More than half a century after the mathematics for evolutionary population genetics were worked out in detail, Dr. Behe and other "Intelligent Design" partisans treat it as if it had never occurred. They intentionally use spurious calculations "proving" mutations couldn't possibly have happened. So the alternative definition is simply another attempt to dishonestly impugn evolution.

Hi Z. You had posted:"There is no evidence for things appearing out of nowhere; and when such appears to happen it's because we lack information, and know this."

That is not exactly correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state"According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence."

For others who might be reading, it is significant that "particles pop into and out of existence." That being the case, we already have evidence of an invisible realm that interacts with our material world.

We do not need to speculate whether such an invisible world exists. We do not need to argue about it. There is evidence for it. Eventually biology will catch up.

The phrase "pop into and out of existence" cannot be quite right. It should actually say "pop into and out of our ability to perceive with our senses". In other words the quantum vacuum exists but is not perceivable by our senses.

It is the scientific way of pointing to a higher, invisible (to the senses) realm.

No description of reality can be complete that does not include this invisible (to the senses) realm.

"No description of reality can be complete that does not include this invisible (to the senses) realm."

Fortunately, our scientific description of reality does include this - indeed, science was responsible for discovering it.

Your attempt to analogize QT to the appearance of irreducibly complex biological systems is a failure, since there is evidence for QT, and exactly zero evidence of biological systems 'popping' into existence wholesale - not to mention a mountain of disconfirming evidence that they did not - they evolved.

The only 'implications' here are that you don't know what you are talking about. The fact that particles pop into existence from the quantum is not relevant to biological systems, which are far, far too large to even be subject to quantum effects. Even such tiny and simple objects as viruses are too large to simply be popped into existence out of the ether.

And, as I pointed out, there is actual evidence of evolution, and, to date, exactly no evidence of biological systems popping into existence like quantum particles, or being designed 'as is.' So your analogy is unsuccessful on multiple levels, making it a poor one and invalidating the point you are trying to make.

My point is that biology has not yet caught up to the facts and the significance of the quantum vacuum.

Of course it has. Chemistry and biochemistry courses took full account of quantum effects back when I was in college 40 years ago.

You know, when you continually engage in this tactic of trying to write pseudo-authoritatively about things you know nothing about, you convince your readers of exactly and only that - i.e., that you know nothing of the things you're writing about.

A "point mutation" can be significant. A set of point mutations can be very significant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation"A point mutation, or single base substitution, is a type of mutation that causes the replacement of a single base nucleotide with another nucleotide of the genetic material, DNA or RNA."

Here is some on about nucleotides:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide"Nucleotides are molecules that, when joined together, make up the structural units of RNA and DNA."

We already know that:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state"According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence"

It would be interesting to see how many of these particles would be necessary to modify a nucleotide. One? A set?

lee_merrill (by all appearances an IDiot who should be ashamed to be responsible for a load of bullshit),

I believe this also addresses a number of Prof. Moran's objections.

No it doesn't.

Detailed scenarios are most welcome.

Scenarios:

1. Behe realized that his proposed "IC" systems were actually reducible, so he revised the definition without actually changing its meaning in hopes to keep IC alive, at least in appearance (it was a stillborn).

2. Lee is a full blown IDiot.

3. Lee is instead just too credulous and invested in his believes, and lacks enough understanding to notice Behe's bullshit tactics.

4. Example: lee might see that a phrase such as: "then Darwinism is deemed an unlikely explanation and intelligent design a likely one" contains a false dichotomy whereby only two options are offered when multiple natural options might be applicable. Evolution is not just "Darwinism" any more.

It would be interesting to see how many of these particles would be necessary to modify a nucleotide. One? A set?

Sorry, that's not the way virtual particles work (that's the name in quantum physics for particles having only temporary existence). They don't change any biochemical processes from those that are expected and observed. In fact, on a subatomic scale, these virtual particles are necessary to account for the expected and observed biochemical processes. This is because of course biochemical processes must obey fundamental physics, part of which is quantum physics, part of which is virtual particles.

Anus., the utmost IDiot, does not even know what a particle means there. Anus. just browses through words and takes whatever seems to support whatever "it" (Anus.) wants to support. Takes a quote, does not really understand anything but "pop into and out of existence," ignores or simply does not understand any possible context for such events, thus puts them into an ridiculously inappropriate context, such as mutations, and expect people to be convinced of some kinda expertise. That might have worked for Anus. among uneducated people like itself. It could also just be troll tactics: get whatever words from anywhere, even if you don't understand them, and produce mayhem. I would not be surprised, this is a classic tactic in creationist argumentation.

What this means is that your explanation is like hieroglyphics to Anus. Yet, Anus. might take a word or two, or the only sentence that "it" could make sense of, and use that as a primer for more nonsense and context-free quotations.

Recent Comments

Principles of Biochemistry 5th edition

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Superstition

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerlyseemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.

Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.

The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.

Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.

The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.